Ann Coulter, Exorcist

2 When Jesus got out of the boat, a man with an impure spirit came from the tombs to meet him. 3 This man lived in the tombs, and no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain. 4 For he had often been chained hand and foot, but he tore the chains apart and broke the irons on his feet. No one was strong enough to subdue him. 5 Night and day among the tombs and in the hills he would cry out and cut himself with stones.

6 When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him. 7 He shouted at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? In God’s name don’t torture me!” 8 For Jesus had said to him, “Come out of this man, you impure spirit!”

9 Then Jesus asked him, “What is your name?”

“My name is Legion,” he replied, “for we are many.”

-Mark 5:2-9

Ann Coulter begins her newest polemic with this quotation from the Gospel of Mark, immediately capturing the reader’s attention and setting the tone for her most elegant, sophisticated, and literary work to date. Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America is Coulter’s exorcism of the dark spirits hidden within the political Left. The bestselling author combines insights in mob psychology, the history of the French Revolution, and the theology of evil to illuminate the political challenges of the day. Even those who have studied the Left in depth will be startled by the clarity and originality of the argument she methodically demonstrates over 300 packed pages.

Coulter uses Gustave Le Bon’s 1896 The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind as the foundation of her analysis. She notes as evidence of the book’s accuracy that both Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini used the text not to understand mobs but to incite them. Throughout Demonic she returns to the influential text and applies its analysis to the union mobs of Ohio, the Obamacare mobs, the progressive conspiracy mobs, and the Bush Derangement mobs. World War II’s totalitarian dictators aren’t the only ones reading from Le Bon’s playbook to harness the power of a mob to push forward an intolerable political agenda.

You start with the French Revolution, and you sure can make the left look bad, David. Ann is no fool. But Madison, Hamilton, Jay, Franklin and Jefferson (well, Jefferson, sort of) were not French leftists.

The American experiment wasn't carried out by French leftists; it was sealed by liberals. By the very definition of the term. Liberals founded the US.

You start your book report by telling us that Coulter's book is set up with a strawman. Nothing relevant can come after.

Oh, and Mr. Swindle, good review. Particularly your observation, about how Miss Coulter shines in a whole new way when interpreting history. Makes me want to re-read it, because I'm tired of waiting for everyone else to finally get to it.

trickyblain

Dearest fritzdler,

Liberal means collectivist?!

Well, I'd never call myself one if that were the case. I'm a liberal. I reject your definition. And I have better (the US Founders) authority than you do (FPM/Savage) to back it, bro!

olddog

Do your homework libtard, even Rep ..Dem have switched names during our democracy..ps as a liberal guess you filed for public housing, wic, caid, free cell and of course. parking first?

Damien

Olddog,

Insulting people will get you no where.

trickyblain

Got that right olddog. How did you know? I am also a welfare queen who hates America, loves terrorism and abortions (preferably carried out simultaneously). I love Obama because he's a Islamocommiefascistboo. And of course, I want — I desparately want — to force everyone to live under Sharia, even though I don't believe in God.

And I especially love how 14 people voted "thumbs up" for a post evidently written by a rhesus monkey with dementia. Really shows the serious intellect of the FPM readership!

Maxie

So what's your definition of being a 'liberal'?
I've always thought of the contemporary liberal as a person who's happy to give you the shirt of someone elses back.

WilliamJamesWard

Love it……………….William

tarleton

The american founding fathers were CLASSICAL LIBERALS and NOT the collectivist idiots of today
The FR promised equality and freedom …you cannot have both

http://twitter.com/#!/daveswindle DavidSwindle

I did not start with the French Revolution. The first six words of your comment are a lie.

trickyblain

Oh, I'm sorry. Your fawning, uncritical, book report quoted the Bible, then began the strawman of the French Revolution/international left, that, in reality, has absolutely nothing in common with American liberalism — demonstrated by the liberals that created the Constitution (which was seen by its fierce opponents — anti-federalists — as "big gov't) and today's moderate Democrats. Conservatives were overwhelmingly Torries.

No mobs during the time of the American Revolution? Really?

http://twitter.com/#!/daveswindle DavidSwindle

Ann has a whole chapter refuting this argument that you're making.

trickyblain

I'm sure she does. Regardless, history vadidates my position. American liberalism has always been a far diffent animal than the international left. Liberals don't look fondly upon extremes.

http://twitter.com/#!/daveswindle DavidSwindle

History does not validate your position. The so-called "liberalism" of today has more to do with the philosophical tradition of Rousseau which inspired the French revolutionaries than the limited government philosophy of the founders' CLASSICAL liberalism.

trickyblain

Explain how. What policies do modern liberals support that would fall in line with Rousseau? Not leftists that call themselves liberal (much like Breivik calling himself a Christian), but liberals.

Rousseau, at his essence, felt that the ideal is a society without gov't. People, as rational beings, would see what benefits them as individuals and society and do the right thing without gov't mandates. Isn't that totally contrary to conservative complaints about liberals?

http://twitter.com/#!/daveswindle DavidSwindle

I've just reviewed a book that spends 300 pages explaining how. If you want to argue with me about the book's claims you should read it first. But here's one example that Coulter provides of how modern so-called liberals have more in common with Rousseau than the founders, on page 225:

The two main impulses of the Legal Left in America appear totally contradictory to a normal person. On one hand, they act as if judges are all-seeing visionaries capable of expressing the "general will" in accordance with Rousseau. But at the same time liberals don't trust judges to do their jobs, which is to hold trials.

trickyblain

Sounds fairly unconvincing, to be honest. How can you ascribe thoughts to a wide-ranging group of people? Seems collectivist. I, for one, have never had a thought remotely resembling what you've ascribed to me (being a liberal).

But I will read the book. I've actually grown to like Ann, despite disagreeing with her work.

http://twitter.com/#!/daveswindle DavidSwindle

"How can you ascribe thoughts to a wide-ranging group of people?"

Because identifying yourself with a certain group means that it's likely you hold to the group's core ideas. I can say that "Christians believe Jesus rose from the dead" without always putting in a caveat that a minority of people who identify as Christians don't actually believe in Jesus' resurrection. Same deal in politics. We can talk about "conservatives" or "leftists" and make generalizations about how most members of that group think because we're grown-ups and know that there are always individual exceptions to everything.

I haven't ascribed any thoughts to you.

trickyblain

Agreed that generalizations are needed. But they need to be right generalizations. It is a correct generalization to say Christians belive that Jesus rose from the dead. But incorrect to say that liberals love abortion (you didn't say that, of course, but I think Ann has).

The core problem with many conservative writings — including this website, is that they use hard leftism (in the international sense) to generalize liberals. Not that you've personally done this, but conflating American liberals with communism is exactly the same faulty reasoning as conflating American conservatism with the Nazi Party.

The thoughts regarding legalism is not only something I have never thought, but it's never come up in any of the many discussions I've had with many liberals.

http://twitter.com/#!/daveswindle DavidSwindle

"Liberals love abortion" isn't a generalization. It's a hyperbole and a provocation from someone who knows what buttons to push to provoke a reaction. And adults are smart enough to recognize it as such instead of claim that conservatives actually believe that all leftists "love abortion." (Though I will certainly say that some do.)

"Not that you've personally done this, but conflating American liberals with communism is exactly the same faulty reasoning as conflating American conservatism with the Nazi Party."

No, it's not. American conservatism has absolutely nothing to do with National Socialism. But communist ideas have clearly infiltrated the mainstream of the Democratic Party. David Horowitz explains how this happened in the section titled "The Mind of the Left" from his book "Unholy Alliance." He shows how the same worldview that his communist parents had has shaped the modern day Left. Also see "The Shadow Party" for more information about how hard leftists in the late '60s who were openly pro-communist shifted their tactics in the early '70s and chose to instead appear more moderate and infiltrate the Democratic Party.

"The thoughts regarding legalism is not only something I have never thought, but it's never come up in any of the many discussions I've had with many liberals."

Get beyond your own limited experiences. Saying "You're wrong about the Left because none of the 'liberals' I know have said anything like that" is the same kind of irrational thinking as the racist who says "Black people can't be smart because all the black people I know are idiots."

trickyblain

More on this later…work calls! Good discussion. DH was kind enough to send me a copy of Unholy Alliance a while back but I confess it's been sitting unread on my bookshelf. I'll be interested in reading the section referenced in your post and continuing this….

http://twitter.com/#!/daveswindle DavidSwindle

I look forward to your thoughts on it. Glad I could motivate you to pick it up.

trickyblain

"You fish monge, off a 'guillotine
with you 'chop your head to show
how empty it is…..folly (or a more aggressive insult) ………"

-WilliamJamesWard

Maxie

" How can you ascribe thoughts to a wide-ranging group of people?"

Ask Rousseau – wasn't that his idea of a "genral will"?
Again, what is YOUR definintion of a liberal?

trickyblain

My definition of a liberal can be found in the latest edition of Webster's.

"a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways"

Webster's definition describes me and most conservatives I know.

"c : an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights "

The definition of liberalism doesn't do you any favors either: http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal… Note how the two definitions within it are in direct conflict and you'll be able to see how "liberal" has conflicting definitions depending on who wants to use it to further their political agenda.

Maxie

Not surprisingly Tricky just punted. Most liberals I've known just have a compulsive need to feel morally superior in any given situation. Maybe there's a word for that.

trickyblain

No, Maxie. This website is David's job. I have my own to worry about. It's a good, serious discussion; not throwing out a one-liner and going back to my own work. It deserves my attention and I fully intend on continuing when I can give it.

Morally superior? Nah, most folks I know would get a good laugh if they read that. I'm just educated in this area and it interests me.

trickyblain

"a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways"

That's me, too! The antonym of the term is "conservative" (i.e., orthodox, traditional, and established). They've meant the same thing, politically, for centuries.

The entry for liberalism gives definitions very close to 'c' in. They are not in conflict.
"c : an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights."

Hey, that's me, too!

As far as political agendas , I doubt those interns are constantly thinking about how to advance them while they are writing dictionaries.

coyote3

They hate themselves? I know, they are the most generous people in the world, with other peoples' money.

Rifleman

That's why I don't use the term "liberal" as a label for the socialists running the democrat party, tricky. By today's pop standards even the most liberal of the Founding Fathers were "ultra right wing extremists." Did you mean to use a strawman argument to try and make your point on strawman arguments? I know you're tricky like that;-)

trickyblain

In context with the times, they were anything but right-wing extremists, RM. At the same time, they weren't French Revolution-style radicals. They were rational, inquisitive liberals unconstrained by tradition and prior authority.

coyote3

And they created their own authority.

umustbkidding

I really feel that it is an oxymoron to call you folks liberals. You don't believe in liberty at all. So to use the term that liberals founded the U.S. with the understanding of who liberals are today is utterly ridiculous.

Steve

Modern Liberalism vs Classical Liberalism…opposites.

Steeloak

I agree with Tricky that our country was founded by Liberals – Classical Liberals that is. What a Liberal is today is nothing at all like a Classical Liberal.

Prior to the theft of the word Liberal by socialist progressives, it mean a political philosophy that stood for natural rights, limited government, protecting personal and property rights, free markets, and political power flowing from the people to government.

Today Liberal means a political philosophy where government defines individual rights, property rights are not respected, government is not limited, markets are tightly controlled, and power flows from government to the people.

Doubt my word Tricky? I suggest you read "Road to Serfdom" by Hayek or "Essays on Political Economy" by Bastiat. There are many others, but those two are a great place to start your education.

trickyblain

Ack. I poseted a reply thanking you for your reasoned reponse, and trying to clarify some things, but it's not showing. Maybe it will later….

davarino

The "liberals" of today have been infiltrated by Leftists. I am not saying all liberals in the Dem party are Leftists, but they have become useful idiots. My grandmother is a Dem only because she is an old style liberal. She cares about the poor and civil rights and …etc. and thinks the Dem party is the only party that cares also. You cant talk politics with her because she has already made up her mind, but if she knew the kind of people that run the Dem party and the Leftist take over she would leave in a heart beat. I actually believe it might be a good thing that Obama got into office, this way everyone can see the naked Leftism in the party rather than the stealth leftism we have seen for the last 60 years. There is still hope for those old time liberals.

StephenD

Davarino, you are on to something here. But I wonder, if the Left is allowed to unquestioningly dictate the terms…. For instance, the popular belief is that the Democrats care for the less fortunate, for equality under the law, elderly and sick. As if to say of the Republicans it is the opposite. The facts prove distinctly otherwise. Continued entitlement programs along the same path they are on and there won't be anything for future generations. Does this indicate "caring?" We let them define the verbiage also. I maintain there is NOTHING Liberal about wanting a few elite to dictate to the balance of us how to live our lives. This to me is Totalitarianism. “Progressive” to them is reverting back to Woodrow’s ways. THIS is progress?!? Going backward? I hope you see my point. We should at the least, take back the terminology and not let them re-define the meaning of words because it matters.

Rifleman

Good points from both of you. I'd rather have justice and prosperity out of malice than injustice and poverty out of good intentions (which pave the road to…).

davarino

Yes, I agree with what you said. I meant to make your point, that liberals have good intentions but I believe in the end the conservative way is the best and most sustainable. The liberal/Leftist way is to keep giving people fish at ever faster rates and adding to the number of people you give fish. Whereas the conservative way is to teach those people to fish, making them self reliant. Thats not to say there arent people that still need fish given to them.

tarleton

political terminology is never firm and set in stone , but flexible, morphing and changing with the times..just look at the history of the rep/dems in the USA

kafirman

"In infusing her political analysis with historical, psychological, and spiritual layers she reminds her readers of the depth and seriousness of the problems at hand."

This is natural law. I wonder if Demonic examines the homosexual lifestyle. Homosexuality and elective abortion are likewise clearly seen to be evil by both a psychological and spiritual examination. The toleration of these evils moves a culture from America during 1776 to France during 1789. Sadly America at 2011 have slouched closer toward France at 1789 than she is to America during 1776.

"These are not just political contests and policy debates. In many instances the root problem is far deeper: the pain that comes from being free and having to think for yourself."

Outstanding prose. This is the best I've read of Swindle. touche!

http://twitter.com/#!/daveswindle DavidSwindle

Thanks for your kind words.

kafirman

Great article on a great book. The notion of "layers" is big. Any narrative should have corroboration. A political ideology is expected to have an air of moral greatness to it. There should be a fantastic synergy with the "layers" of something as big a mature understanding of "unalienable rights," natural law and yes, "Nature and Nature's God."

Unfortunately, the folks at FPM–and Miss Coulter too–are closing their minds about the dissonance between the layers in the Obama narrative. Does a Connecticut SSN strike anyone as out of place?

http://twitter.com/#!/daveswindle DavidSwindle

My friend Ron Radosh just sent me this comment which he said I should add here:

"As one who has in the past criticized Coulter, and had a serious disagreement with her on the issue of Joe McCarthy, I hereby want to post a response and indicate my agreement with David Swindle's review. In her new book, Coulter devastatingly dissects how leftists and liberals analyze the reality of the psychology of the mobs. From the French Revolution on, she does a magnificent job of exposing the double-think, obfuscations and rhetoric of the Left. (I prefer that characterization to liberals, although often, there is little difference between the two.) This is definitely the single best contribution Ann Coulter has made to sane dialogue. Congratulations, Ann! Ron Radosh"

Rifleman

If I always agreed with my friends, we'd be an echo chamber, and our thinking would advance much slower. People I disagree with help me develop my arguments as much as people I agree with. Good job.

Mike Giles

I believe Ms.Coulter is wrong on MLK. I think that the "activists" who came afterward, and stole his mantle have done a great deal to tarnish his name. MLK's followers while he was alive were never a "mob". Normally the were a group of well behaved demonstrators assembling peacefully to petition for redress of grievances. The reaction to them was often mob violence. Marshall on the other hand, did much to create our current court system that see itself as above the people, as represented by their legislative bodies. MLK sought to show the unfairness of laws by challenging them in public, and appealing to his fellow citizens conscious. Marshall sought to change them by appealing to a self elected "elite".

R. Walton

Martin Luther King acheived in 13 years what Thurgood Marshall and his legal team had been working on since the 1930s'. Granted that Marshall's most significant breakthrough was the 1954 Supreme Court decision; but without King no significant intergration would have happened. Even the journalistic status enjoyed by Ms. Coulter most likely flowed from MLK and his acheivements.

Ozzy

Those dawg gone pesky Blacks always wantin' their 'Civil Rights'. I just knew the French had something to do with it.

Ghostwriter

Ozzy,that has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site. If you're trying to be funny,it's not working.

Supreme_Galooty

Well, I got a chuckle out of it, although my sense of humour has always been oddly situated.

pavan

If this is your way of objecting to the criticism of MLK, it's not effective. Try putting together an actual argument next time.

BOB PASCARELLA

William E. Gladstone wrote, "Liberalism is trust of people, tempered by prudence; Conservatism, distrust of the people, tempered by fear". Let us rewrite this quote, for today the roles are reversed.

Supreme_Galooty

Of course that observation is simplistic while examined out of context. There is some merit to it, but it falls short – by some considerable bit – of defining the two terms whilst lounging around on its own. Given its ambiguities and possible shortcomings, it would make an entertaining conversation starter at a party where most attendees didn't know each other.

http://twitter.com/#!/daveswindle DavidSwindle

"While political parties change positions with the times, the terms liberal and conservative are as consistent as the words "rock" and "water." "

This isn't true at all as anyone who's studied history and the political terminology in other countries knows. These are just general terms that can be applied to all kinds of stuff outside of politics.

trickyblain

Check your dictionary terms. They haven't changed through the ages.

If you say you are the definition of a liberal, but identify yourself as a conservative, see our discussion about exceptions to valid generalizations. You are your Christian who is skeptical of Christ rising.

Supreme_Galooty

That's just poppycock in a sock. Language changes constantly, and if you weren't so dead set on wrong-sided certitude you'd know that. America's founders were of all manner and stripe, but "liberal" would not be one of the attributes. Libertarian, perhaps, but not liberal. Just like the people one knows who are carefree and gay, but are not given over to homosexuality.

GUEST

I remember reading a piece last summer citing Le Bon from another writer on NRB-had never heard of him before – so word gets around.

I can't buy the book, can't afford it but have read excerpts, seems interesting,

http://vnnforum.com DeShawn

LOL, "David Swindle." Now that's a jew name if I've ever heard one!

UCSPanther

Let's take a collection to buy Deshawn a one-way ticket to Iran. I hear they are "100% Juedenfrei" as promised by Ahmadinejad, and our resident VNN varmint would be happier there.

tanstaafl

I'm surprised that he hasn't left on his own accord.

trickyblain

Thinking that the warden is in the way of that.

trickyblain

LOL, "DeShawn." Now that's a f—– n—- name if I've ever heard one!

Or is that not cool? I mean, to make fun of names and stereotypes and all that?

wsk

You, sir are the ultimate mucking foron!! Away with thee!

tanstaafl

Deshawn – A life full of hate is an empty life.

WilliamJamesWard

Viva Ann, la reine de l"Amerique……….great introduction David, I must get this
book, best regards………………………………William

BS77

Ann Coulter's books are well researched and written with conviction and style. She is
one of America's greatest living journalists, despite the jackal howls from the left.

http://hereticscrusade.blogspot.com Guy DeWhitney

I wonder if she has folded into her analysis the simple fact that the American Revolution wasn't, a revolution that is.
It was a colony revolt by the cream of the Enlightenment who had abandoned Eurpean partisanship.

http://hereticscrusade.blogspot.com Guy DeWhitney

Dave, ask Jamie to fill you in on why your statement about the US coming into WWII and winning it is both correct AND naive; short answer – WE supplied and financed the Soviet survival and most of the Soviet victories as well as conducting our own war in the West. Google Murmansk. But, also google Russian casualties and battles… it adds nuance to a common, black and white, view of history.

digdigby

Russian casualties? They brought them on themselves. Do you forget that the Soviets STARTED the damned war with the Hitler-Stalin Pact and then went on to cheerfully dismember Poland? Stalin only trusted one man in his heinous career . Adolph Hitler. Big mistake. While Nazis were pouring into Russia they were still arresting and shooting people in Moscow for 'saying things against the Nazis' – someone forgot to change the rules.

http://hereticscrusade.blogspot.com Guy DeWhitney

Yes, Russian casualties… the Russian PEOPLE who died in droves because their leaders (the ones you hate so much, with just cause) ordered them to stand, or die… and they stood and died or turned and died, but die they did.
Were they not patriotic victims of invasion as much as any Frenchman?

http://hereticscrusade.blogspot.com Guy DeWhitney

Regarding the US "winning the war" by liberally supplying the Soviets I think that we should have just fought our own war. The most heinous casulties occurred in the early assaults or, in long seiges. Imagine the joy the Germans would have had trying to OCCUPY Russia if they had managed to knock off Stalin and his Merry Men?
Heck, even the FRENCH gave the Nazis a hard time; imagine millions of pissed, drunk Russians in your charge Herr Occupier!

axie

Mistakenly or not, a great many Russians looked upon the Germans as their rescuers from Stalin and his NKVD-Communist regime. Russian history between the World Wars was every bit as bad, or worse, than Hitler's Germany.

Jelly

Conservatism carries the connotation of clinging to “old” values, while liberalism carries that of being open to the dominant “new idea”. In the 18th century the dominant new idea was freedom, individualism and human rights. The dominant new idea of the last century has been the totalitarianism of the international left, radically opposed to the ideas of the enlightenment, which are today espoused mostly by conservatives, since they represent the “old” values relative to today. I think it is high time for true freedom lovers to reclaim the name “liberal”, hijacked by the very people who least value liberty.

Supreme_Galooty

What you say is mostly accurate and I would not wish to quibble with it. I prefer, however, a term that eschews the pettifoggery of liberal vs. conservative discussion. That would be "Americanist." The founding of America marked the first time in history that the concept of Individual Liberty was institutionalized. Then, as now, there were collectivists or tribalists who placed the Group first, begrudgingly acknowledging the worth of the individual only in the context of his being part of the Group. But the Americanist held Individual Liberty to be the highest value.

I also like the term Americanist because it is open to further nuance, such as including the concept of Thumos as being peculiarly American in nature. Also, Americans don't like to dink around – they prefer direct action, and when dealt a blow they tend to get back up and go to work rather than sit around licking their wounds.

Asher

Coulter gets to the heart of what is taking over the planet…Pure Evil. 2 Thessalonians 9 says, The coming of the Lawless on will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of couterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and (in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing.) They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth, but have delighted in Wickedness. You can see this trait in alot of Liberals, they refuse to acknowledge truth, they are too committed to a Radical ideology of hatred, atheism, socialism, or Anti-Semetism. They will not be deemed worthy to know the truth or be saved by God in the End.

Amused

What else would one expect from Coulter , an opinionated "know it all " who talks over any and all opponents to her "world view " , which just so happens to be the pablum of rhetoric sucked up by her sycophants . In addition , a very pooor analogy at best of vthe French revolution , which in fact was brought about by the behavior of Coulters "good guys " and the albeit savage reaction of the "citizens " of France . Comparison to Robepierre's group of absolutist revolutionaries , and their ignominious "solution " to "the left " in the US today , is borne of ignorance with agenda . Coulter will be the exorcist eh ? What she leaves out is , the French eventually came to ther senses ,Robespierre's end and that of his rogues , is I guess conveniently left out . Coulter incorporates a very old practice – "demonize your opponents " . The book's not worth the paper it's printed on .But there are enough fools to make her , yet richer .

Colin Oskappy

Thank you for your horribly written rebuttal. Not a fact to be found in your keyboard vomit.

Amused

Buy the book and suck it up Oskappy , Coulters BANKING on dweebs like you .

crackerjack

Coulter rewrites history to accommodate for US exceptionalism and francobhobia. It makes one wonder who's more stupid. Coulter or those who read her dribble. The US is intellectually doomed.

What a shame that good healthy trees were cut down to produce the paper this idiocy was printed on.

Colin Oskappy

Another genius. 'jack, please. It's "drivel", not "dribble".
The U.S. is not intellectually doomed. Some of us are willing to help you. Next time include a fact or two. Or give the laptop back to your mom.

Amused

oh look ,a Coulter sycophant is mincing words , crackerjacks got more on the cap than you pal . Bow down to you guru fool .

wsk

Obviously a product of the public school system.

Zam

I heard Ann Coulter was a (girl) friend of Bill Maher. If this is true, it was just a little confusing for me.

Steve

Unlikely….Maher is well known to have a lech for Black women.

Jim

King was a tragic figure. While his first civil right march was for him a great success the next one did not turn out so well. The sheriff of the next town had read Gandhi on massive resistance.. He therefore reserved a great deal of jail space in counties around.
The marchers were loaded on buses and placed in the reserved jails. End of march.
Later he went to old mayor Daily who promised him every thing and delivered nothing.
In the end he got connected with a garbage strike which was not of the same scale as a civil rights march.

The media was his greatest ally and painted every thing just beautifully. How he himself felt we do not know.

http://google.com Fumiko Cordiero

Hello may I quote some of the information found in this site if I reference you with a link back to your site?